Greens can’t join dots

When I heard Russel Norman criticising the government’s achievement in staying on track back to surplus I thought I’d mis-heard him.

But no – here it is in black and white from the Green Party Facebook page:

 

They can’t join the dots between economic surplus and the ability to provide services and assistance to people in need.

They still haven’t grasped the dangers of too much debt.

They still think it’s okay to spend more than you earn.

Crocodile tears

Green co-leader Russel Norman is still complaining about the float of 49% of Mighty River Power.

Mighty River Power’s shares have been transferred from all New Zealanders to corporates and a small minority of already well off New Zealanders, Green Party Co-leader Dr Russel Norman said today. . . 

Finance Minister Bill English last night revealed that only 113,000 individual New Zealanders bought shares in the Mighty River Power offer with an average purchase of $8220 worth of shares. The Government claimed over 440,000 New Zealanders had pre-registered to buy shares.

“There aren’t too many mum and dad investors with the ability to put down $8,220 on a share portfolio,” said Dr Norman. . .

An average is just that – some people would have bought more than $8220 worth of shares and others would have bought less.

What’s more 68% of applicants didn’t have a CNS indicating they were first-time investors and more likely to have purchased smaller amounts of shares.

But Norman is crying crocodile tears anyway.

As Hey Clint showed, the Green Party is delighted at their act of sabotage and it is the LabourGreen power play which put a lot of the smaller investors off buying shares.

When they list today the price is very likely to go up because institutional investors like ACC, Community Trusts and KiwiSaver funds will want more.

LabourGreen will no doubt complain about people making a fast profit but had it not been for their power play the float price would almost certainly have been higher.

No shame, no sense

Citizens’ Initiated Referenda were supposed to give members of the public an opportunity to influence policy.

The petition seeking a referendum on the partial sale of a few state assets has been taken over by LabourGreen politicians.

Within minutes of the announcement by Clerk of the House Mary Harris that the petition had too few valid signatures Labour’s SOE spokesman Clayton Cosgrove  issued a media release saying Labour will redouble its efforts to help get the remaining signatures needed to ensure a referendum on asset sales goes ahead.

And the Green Party co-leader Russel Norman sent an email saying:

We have just this afternoon heard that we need 16,000 more valid signatures to force a referendum to stop further asset sales.

I am contacting you straight away to ask for your help to protect our assets for all New Zealanders.

We are so close. Over 292,000 New Zealanders have had their signature counted and confirmed. We now have two months to get the last signatures, and that’s where we need your help. . . .

. . . These signatures need to be posted back urgently. Please collect what you can and return them to me:

Russel Norman MP
Freepost
Parliament Buildings
Wellington.

They have already wasted tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of dollars, on promoting the petition and soliciting signatures but failed to meet the target needed.

They have abused the CIR process by making this a politicians’ initiated petition.

In spite of the tens of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars spent on getting signatures they’ve mucked it up. They haven’t got enough valid ones.

Even if they got enough to force a referendum it would make absolutely no difference to the policy.

Continuing to seek signatures is an expensive exercise in futility.

In every argument there comes a time to accept you’ve lost. LabourGreen passed that point a long time ago.

They have shown no shame about wasting public money and are showing no sense in failing to accept the futility of continuing to flog this very dead horse.

If they can’t get the numbers . . .

Keeping Stock is running a caption competition for a photo of David Shearer and Russel Norman looking bemused.

My contribution: “If we can’t get the numbers to run a referendum, how are we going to get the numbers to run the country?”

There’s hope

Quote of the day:

. . . Before the electricity market could be replaced with a state-controlled pricing regime, two things would need to happen. Labour and the Greens would need to win the next election, and if they did they would need to carry out this policy. Neither, I think, is likely.

John Key remains the most widely admired of any New Zealand Prime Minister I have seen. National continues to lead all polls by a margin that is remarkable five years into the life of a government.

Unless something disastrous happens, he looks certain to win again next year. . . 
John Roughan.

But winning the most votes of any party isn’t enough under MMP, parties have to get above 50%, by themselves or in coalition.

Should National go into the election with no partners in prospect, an absolute majority is conceivable. Conventional wisdom says it is practically impossible because it hasn’t happened since 1951. But before then, it was not unusual.

Labour won more than 50 per cent of the vote in 1938 and 1946, as did National in 1949 as well as 1951. Since then many have gone as close as 47 per cent, including National at the last election when it became only the third post-war government to be re-elected with an increased share of the vote.

There is nothing magical about an extra 3 per cent. Conventional wisdom is destined to be surprised sooner or later.

It becomes more possible the more often David Shearer stands too close to the larrikin.

Shearer is a sensible man. To enact Norman’s scheme or Labour’s version of it, he would need to ignore all the economic advice available to him. . .

It can be very easy to ignore the soundest of advice if it doesn’t fit your policy and you’re more interested in power – or the electoral rather than the electrical kind – than people.

Yesterday’s  Roy Morgan poll showed National up and LabourGreen down after the latter’s power plan was announced.

However, that poll is notoriously unreliable.

The next few polls will be more significant but even if they do give the thumbs down to the LabourGreen policy it’s more than a year until the election.

We have few one term governments which makes the odds on winning a second term better than reasonable.

Winning a third term is much harder.

Roughan’s comment shows there’s hope. Enough voters might understand the danger of powering back to seventies socialism to scorn LabourGreen.

But hope doesn’t win elections.

That takes good people, good policy, active party members, money and a lot of hard work.

There’s hope but no certainty.

MRP good buy?

A share broker wrote to David Shearer and Russel Norman thanking them for sabotaging the Mighty River Power float because it would enable him to buy more shares.

He said one of the unfortunate consequences of the LabourGreen power play was that it was putting off first time investors.

They’d been prepared to dip their toes in the investment market with MRP but the uncertainty in the wake of the LabourGreen sabotage was putting them off.

So are MRP shares still a good buy?

I’m not qualified to give financial advice and wouldn’t presume to tell anyone else what to do with their money but I’ll be putting some of mine in MRP.

Greens adopt one policy for all

The Green Party has adopted a single policy statement to fit all situations.

Co-leader Russel Norman said the policy to have a single policy statement was consistent with the party’s policy on waste minimisation.

“We’ve decided there’s no point spouting forth, cluttering up the airwaves, clogging up bandwidth or cutting down trees to produce multiple policy statements when no-one takes any notice of them,” he said.

“It’s a waste of resources which is contrary to our philosophy and principles.”

Co-leader Metiria Turei said the new policy was entirely consistent with the party’s global warming policy.

“We’re worried about hot air and don’t want to be contributing to any more than we absolutely have to,” she said.

“We took baked beans off the breakfast menu but felt we had to do more  – or rather less – and our single policy statement is doing that.”

When asked what the new single policy statement was, the pair clasped hands and said in  unison, “They will have to stop the asset sales.”

“We’ve been saying that since before the last election. We like the sound of it and can’t think of a single situation where it’s not an appropriate statement,” Ms Turei said.

“It will also save us having to think up any policies for the next election which is also consistent with our energy conservation and waste minimisation policies,” Mr Norman added.

Two choices

Voters next year have two choices.

A National-led government that understands the importance of low inflation:

. . . These forecasts of low inflation are good for New Zealand households, particularly those on lower or fixed incomes. In addition, average floating home mortgage interest rates are now around half what they were 5 years ago in 2008. For a family with a $200,000 mortgage, that is saving them around $200 a week.

Or the alternative:

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, there are a number of alternative policies that would put substantial benefits of current low inflation and low interest rates at risk, and that would, of course, cost New Zealand households dearly—for example, trying to artificially and substantially devalue the exchange rate or going soft on inflation; or, for example, opposing the Government’s share offer programme and instead borrowing billions of dollars more to pay for priority assets like schools and hospitals; or, for example, just pulling out the photocopier and printing more money. All of those things would send interest rates and inflation through the roof, directly affecting New Zealand households and families. They are, of course, the cornerstones of the Labour-Green opposition—

Oh yes, the Green Party still wants to print money:

So NZ is borrowing other countries (sic) freshly printed money and paying them interest for the privilege. So why don’t we print some of our own?

NZ training for marathon

An illuminating exchange during Question Time yesterday:

David Bennett: Why is controlling Government expenditure an important part of the Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because between 2000 and 2009 core Crown expenditure jumped from $35 billion to $64 billion, an increase of 84 percent. If we had stuck with that rate of spending, Treasury forecast that the Government would now be spending well over $80 billion per year. In fact, we are spending currently around $73 billion, and Government expenditure as a proportion of GDP is dropping from 35 percent of the economy to 31 percent over the next 3 or 4 years. At the same time as holding Government expenditure, we are improving public services and getting better results for the public.

The total expenditure is very high but the decline as a percentage of GDP is encouraging and must continue.

David Bennett: How will Government policies help increase job opportunities?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Government policies are supporting businesses in times when it is difficult to create new jobs. Job growth occurs when employers, businesses, and the Government have sufficient resources to invest and the confidence to hire a new employee. It is a product of both foreign and domestic investment. We will focus on continuing, as we have done for the last 4 years, to create the best environment we can for businesses to make the decision to invest and employ.

The left thinks it’s the government’s job to create jobs. It’s not.

It’s the government’s job to create the environment which gives businesses the confidence to invest and grow.

David Bennett: What progress is the Government making in its economic plan?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Despite the fact that conditions remain tough, we are continuing to make moderate progress. We would expect to see the economy grow at an average of around 2 percent in real terms. New Zealanders are saving more, exports are continuing to grow, interest rates are at a 50-year low, and real wages continue to grow. At the same time, we are getting on with the rebuilding of Christchurch. Compared with many other developed economies, New Zealand’s is doing pretty well.

Dr Russel Norman: Given his statement at the select committee this morning that the New Zealand economy is “training for a triathlon”, is the triathlon that New Zealanders are taking part in under his Government that, firstly, they are working long hours for low pay; secondly, they are losing their jobs due to the high Kiwi dollar; and then, thirdly, they are making the trans-Tasman dash?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may recall the context for that remark was his proposition that we should get printing money to fix all our problems. I explained to him that the economies where they are doing that are like a patient on a table in the emergency room where they are trying to decide what kind of respirator to give them. Compared with that, New Zealand is like the person outside training for a triathlon—that is, we are in much better shape than economies like those of the UK and Europe. That is why we are not adopting the member’s silly policies.

Dr Russel Norman: Is the Minister confident that his neo-liberal policy agenda is very successful, in light of the fact that New Zealand is now approaching a 6.5 percent current account deficit under Treasury’s own estimates, when he promised that he would rebalance the economy, and we currently have record high unemployment—unemployment that has not been this high since his party was last in Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member points to a number of real challenges for the economy. New Zealand has a 30-year history of current account deficits. We believe we are making some progress, but it will take time to make that progress. But there is no problem that he has come up with that will be fixed by cranking up the Greens’ photocopier and printing money.

Thanks to the hard decisions taken during the mid and late 80s and early 90s and the good work the National-led government has done since 2008, New Zealand is in a much better position than many other countries.

We aren’t out of the woods yet but the mess was years in the making and the cleaning up will take time.

It’s a marathon and New Zealand is fit for it.

Economic ludicrousness

An illuminating exchange during Question Time yesterday:

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: My response to that is, firstly, that we have very significant investment in this country in clean technologies. In fact, I could name for the member any number of companies that are developing further and investing further in jobs and growth in the New Zealand economy right now. But the member again seems to be suggesting that the Government subsidise jobs in industries where they would not otherwise occur—and that that is an answer for economic nirvana in some way—and actually move jobs away from industries where they are prepared to invest in those industries without Government subsidy. With the greatest respect, that is a recipe to head the country to the poorhouse.

Dr Russel Norman: With regard to subsidies, is he aware that in his previous answers and in the previous answers of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister they have given us long lists of particular sectors that the Government is subsidising—the mining sector is, of course, the favourite of the Government—and why is it that it is OK for the Government to subsidise areas such as mining, whereas it is quite hostile to providing even a level playing field to the clean-technology sector?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, with the greatest respect to the member, we are not subsidising the mining sector. In actual fact, all we are not doing is putting the extra costs that the member would advocate on the mining sector, and, somehow, that is supposed to be a subsidy—which, with the greatest respect, is just up there with printing money in economic ludicrousness.

Economic ludicrousness, a very accurate description of Green Party policies.

Herstory of Waitangi

Trans Tasman has suggests the history of the Treaty of Waitangi might be being re-written as a herstory:

There’s a generation of school kids growing up under the impression the Treaty of Waitangi was signed between Governor Hobson and Titewhai Harawira.

This is not so much an indictment on our school system: more on the way Harawira manages to plant herself at the epicentre of our annual national day.

It isn’t clear quite how this happened. True, she managed to make Helen Clark cry, and for some of us there’s always a hope Titewhai – who has become a sort of Kiwi version of a fierce Wodehousian aunt as imagined by one of the more bizarrely gothic Dutch painters – would have a similar impact one of Clark’s successors. There doesn’t seem much chance with the current lot.

If she were to try such a stunt today, John Key would either declare himself relaxed about it, or just have one of his memory lapses. Labour’s David Shearer probably would not notice, unless a staffer or his autocue told him about it. NZ First’s Winston Peters and Act’s John Banks would respond with inarticulate belligerence, and United Future’s Peter Dunne probably with a milder, if more articulate, form of same.

The only ones discombobulated would be Green co-leaders Russel Norman and Metiria Turei: they are more used to being part of protests than being on the receiving end of them.

So what does Waitangi Day, our national day, tell us about ourselves – you know, apart from the fact we are suckers for being bullied by stroppy old ladies?

Well, we’re still working on this treaty stuff, and we’re not very comfortable about the whole race issue. But also we’re not ignoring it and we’re kind of muddling our way through it all, if a little noisily and apologetically.

Apropos of understanding the history of the treaty, I have to confess that I went through school under the impression it ended the land wars.

It was only when I did a New Zealand history paper at university that I learned that wasn’t the case.

Greens want to rob Peter to pay Paul

Year after year remits at National Party conferences sought to ensure fuel taxes and road user charges went in to roaring roading and not the consolidated fund.

The AA and other organisations with an interest in transport lobbied in support of that too.

Eventually they succeeded.

Fuel taxes and road user charges have been directed at roads and not treated as a general tax since 2008.

Now the Green Party wants to go back to the bad old days:

Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee says Green Party Finance Spokesman Russel Norman’s plan to raid the National Land Transport Fund to pay for his “Rent to Buy Housing Scheme”, shows a complete lack of knowledge of public finance in New Zealand.

“Mr Norman seems unaware that roading funding is collected from road users through fuel taxes, user charges and fees. That money is then dedicated to the National Land Transport Fund, to pay for road policing, public transport and road maintenance.

“This dedicated funding or ‘full hypothecation’ was introduced in 2008.

“The Greens can’t have it both ways – paying for houses from road taxes would cause serious problems for the funding of core transport services such as public transport.

“The lack of investment in new roading projects would create long term bottlenecks in our transport system and create congestion, leading to greater fossil fuel use.

“”First it was crank up the photocopiers to print money, now its let’s rob Peter to pay Paul.” said Mr Brownlee.

Cactus Kate found the Green Party housing policy is aimed at people suffering from entitilitis:

Sharissa Naidoo, 25, and her partner have been renting together for four years and say they are desperate to buy their first home.

“The concern is if we’re wanting to start a family and move into a house that’s more than one bedroom, we can’t afford that,” Naidoo said.

Naidoo recently graduated with a Masters Degree in Sociology.

She is now sick of renting and expects the net taxpayer (you) to underwrite a home for her to live in with her “partner” (hate that word) of four years.

All of this, not even one year after her graduation ceremony in May 2012. . .

Taxpayers shouldn’t be funding people’s wants and taxes collected from road users should stay in the transport fund.

Old Year Honours

The Homepaddock panel has awarded the 2012 Old Year Honours:

Dotbomb Award - The media for far exceeding the bounds of public interest with positive stories on Kim Dotcom. The man himself gets an honourable mention in this category for believing the stories.

Icarus Award -Russel Norman. Buoyed by hopes of being named Opposition MP of the Year and a future Finance Minister he flew too close to the sun with his plan to print money.

Political Amnesia Award – The Labour Party for forgetting it’s supposed to be opposing the government not itself.

Toastmasters Recruitment Award – David Shearer for failure of fluency when it was most needed.

Humpty Dumpty Numbers Award – David Parker for thinking numbers could mean whatever he wanted them to when costing his party’s housing policy.

Mirror Mirror Award – David Cunliffe for failing to convince enough of his colleagues he’d be the fairest leader of all and sabotaging his party’s conference in the process.

Once Was Warrior Award – Winston Peters for doing very little.

 

 

 

 

Co-leader conundrum

Sharing the leadership can only work for the wee parties because they know they’ll never be in a position for their leaders to be Prime Minister.

I’m not sure what difference having two co-leaders rather than a leader and deputy makes in practice but it can produce a conundrum when party rules dictate the need for gender balance.

It is especially problematic for wee parties who don’t have enough candidates, or possibly talent, in their ranks, to elevate a sitting MP to the position.

The Green Party faced this problem when Russel Norman became co-leader outside parliament when he wasn’t the next MP on the list.

The Maori Party now have a similar problem.

Tariana Turia has announced she’s not standing again in 2014 and will consider stepping down from the leadership before then.

She’s also asking her co-leader Pita Sharples to step down as leader in favour the party’s only other MP Te Ururoa Flavell.

There may well be good arguments for Sharples to step-down anyway.

But if the party didn’t require gender balance in the co-leadership succession could take place without the need for Sharples to step down.

Still on track for surplus

The opposition likes to say the government doesn’t have a plan, but it does and it’s still on track:

The Government’s economic plan to deliver a faster-growing economy, more jobs and a return to surplus remains on track, despite ongoing uncertainty in many parts of the world, Finance Minister Bill English says.

Issuing the Half-Year Economic and Fiscal Update today, along with the Government’s Budget Policy Statement, he says Budget 2013 will focus on continuing to implement this plan.

“We’ve set four main priorities for this term. “They include returning to surplus and reducing debt; pushing ahead with a wide-ranging programme of microeconomic reforms to create a more productive and competitive economy; driving better results from public services; and supporting the rebuilding of Christchurch.

“This programme is helping New Zealanders and their families to get ahead, encouraging personal responsibility and rewarding people for hard work and enterprise.”

The Half-Year Update forecasts the Government posting a modest surplus of $66 million in 2014/15 – down from the $197 million surplus forecast in Budget 2012. It also shows net core Crown debt peaking below 30 per cent of GDP.

“Thereafter, surpluses are forecast to increase and debt is forecast to fall,” Mr English says. “Continued control over spending has allowed the Government to remain on track to surplus, despite the impact on revenue of more difficult global conditions.”

The importance of this hasn’t yet got through to the opposition who have fought tooth and nail against every policy to control spending, even though it has been done without reducing services.

Over each of the next five years, economic growth is forecast to average 2.5 per cent, together with increasing numbers of New Zealanders in employment and a falling unemployment rate.

“The global economic environment remains uncertain and this makes it even more important to maintain clear and credible fiscal settings,” Mr English says.

“This is a time for sensible and responsible policy – not for untried economic experiments. “Budget 2013 will confirm the Government’s commitment to responsible long-term fiscal management.

“This will require restraint well beyond the surplus target of 2014/15, so we can pay down debt and build a buffer against the next global shock, while at the same time resuming payments to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and targeting investment at priority public services.

Opposition parties are much better at spending money than saving or making it – except of course Green co-leader Russel Norman who is very keen to just print some more.

“At the same time as getting its own finances in order, the Government is continuing to address New Zealand’s significant economic challenges, including a sustained rebalancing towards the internationally competitive sectors of the economy.

“A broad range of targeted microeconomic reforms currently underway through the Government’s Business Growth Agenda will help to lift New Zealand’s productivity and competitiveness.”

Looking ahead, the European sovereign debt crisis and ongoing fiscal debt problems in the United States are risks to the global recovery. Downgraded forecasts of global growth have been factored into the Half-Year Update.

“Compared to many other countries, the New Zealand economy is in good shape,” Mr English says. “Despite our growth forecasts being slightly weaker than in Budget 2012, New Zealand is expected to grow more strongly over the next four years than the Euro area, the United Kingdom, Japan and Canada.

“New Zealand has a number of positive opportunities over the next decade, including strong and growing trade and investment links with Asia, elevated terms of trade and the Christchurch rebuild – which is expected to contribute 0.7 per cent to annual growth over the next few years.

“We’re in a strong position to translate those opportunities into more jobs, higher incomes and better living standards for New Zealand families. “The Government’s economic and fiscal programme is aimed squarely at ensuring this happens.”

The outlook isn’t for boom times, but sustained growth in the face of domestic and international challenges is no small achievement for the National-led government.

It’s also one which we couldn’t hope to achieve with Labour-Green prescriptions.

Another good reason to vote National

The Green Party wants Cabinet positions in proportion to its vote should it be in government with labour after the next election.

On the surface that seems fair, but which positions does it want?

Dr Norman wants Finance, Metiria Turei could get Social Development, Kevin Hague may get Health, Kennedy Graham could go for Trade, Eugenie Sage for the Christchurch rebuild, Gareth Hughes with Energy, and Catherine Delahunty with Education.

It’s not just the number of positions but their importance which ought to be taken into account. Some positions in Cabinet are more equal than others.

These are all very important positions which would have a very big impact on how much money the country earns, how it earns it, how much the government spends and how and where it spends it.

Having the Green Party wield that much power provides another very good reason to vote National.

If they can’t run a conference . .

Quote of the day:

“Let’s face it, the Labour Party can’t even run a conference, how on earth could they run the country?

“What they’re demonstrating is they just fundamentally do not like each other and it’s no great surprise that a lot of New Zealanders don’t like what they are doing,” he said. John Key.

The polls show a Labour/Green/New Zealand First/Maori Party/Mana coalition with a similar number of seats as National and its potential coalition partners.

But the public usually waits for a party to perform well in opposition before it’s trusted in government.

Labour has been overshadowed by the Green Party and NZ First in opposition. Now it’s disunity is on display, and will continue to be so at least until February, it’s shown it can’t even run itself.

“I always treat whoever the leader of the opposition is with respect … but the simple bottom line is if you go and have a party which is going to be internally consumed, which will be the case whoever wins, in the end it’s a really bad news story for Labour.

“The only winner out of this will be [Greens leader] Russel Norman.”

It certainly won’t be New Zealand which deserves politicians who put their energies into serving their constituents rather than mismanaging themselves.

The enemy within

Labour Party leader David Shearer probably doesn’t look to Margaret Thatcher for advice, but he would do well to mark her words: “ . . . We always have to be aware of the enemy within, which is much more difficult to fight and more dangerous to liberty.”

Shearer is facing an onslaught from the enemies within – his party, the left leaning commentariat in blogs and the media.

Thatcher was talking about unions and given the power they wield in Labour it’s probable that they too are working to undermine Shearer’s leadership.

That isn’t a difficult job because after nearly a year in the position he’s failed to gain traction in the party or in opposition.

As Tapu Misa says:

Some people grow into the role of party leader; others seem somehow diminished by it. . .

Shearer seems a decent man. Unwilling to engage in the unwholesome side of politics, he projected himself as the anti-politician politician – reasonable, pleasant, honourable. His made-for-television back story (brave, selfless aid worker saving the world’s starving millions) looked like the perfect foil to John Key’s.

But it’s a punishing gig being Opposition leader, and Shearer is, sadly, out of his depth. . .

Helen Clark handed Phil Goff a poisoned chalice when she resigned on election night in 2008.

 

Shearer won the leadership at least partly by default – because he wasn’t the other candidate David Cunliffe.

That meant he didn’t start with a huge vote of confidence. His first job was to get that and he hasn’t.

He also needed to unite his caucus, get the slackers working, ease the deadwood out, revitalise the volunteer base and be an effective opposition leader and he hasn’t done that either.

His caucus is still divided, the slackers are still slacking, the deadwood is still comfortably ensconced, volunteers are disillusioned, and both Winston Peters and Russel Norman are far more effective at attacking the government and getting public attention than he is.

He’ll have to work miracles at the party conference this weekend, but even if he does, it’s possible few will notice. There’s a royal visit, the All Blacks are playing Italy, it’s Show and Cup weekend in Canterbury, heritage celebrations in North Otago and all sorts of other events around the country that will be competing for public attention and media space.

This weekend will be Shearer’s big chance to really shine but even if he does the strength of the enemy within means it is almost certainly too late.

Spot the similarities

Gerry Eckhoff spots the similarities between social credit and quantitative easing:

. . . I intend to follow the current fashion and print money. Some of you will say that is a heinous crime deserving of the most severe punishment.

Counterfeiting, after all, destroys our monetary system. Society cannot allow the printing of money just because there is a need for more cash. Society’s politicians however now promote printing our own money to solve the world’s financial problems so I figured “sauce for the goose … ” If our politicians believe printing a couple of billion dollars annually to pay for their pet projects is such a good idea, then surely my idea of printing a paltry few dollars for my projects is even better.

As I have no wish to be found guilty of plagiarism, as well as counterfeiting, I must acknowledge the idea to print money as required is not new. Many years ago a Major C. H. Douglas thought it was such a good idea he called it “social credit”, to legitimise the printing of money if and when needed.

Social credit sounded so much better than “money printing”. The good major failed to notice if you increase the supply of a product its value trends downwards. That applies to milk, lamb, beef, timber as well as the money you are printing, so you have to keep printing and producing to retain the status quo. One well-known advocate of this approach is one Robert Mugabe, from Zimbabwe, where his printing presses simply couldn’t keep up with the daily devaluation of their currency but would have been great for the local paper mill if they could only have printed enough money to build one. . . .

Rather surprisingly, the idea of the good Major Douglas and the not-so-good Robert Mugabe, is now fast becoming orthodox monetary policy endorsed by no lesser political and economic giants as our very own Green Party. This print-and-distribute policy has the backing of their MPs who have obviously studied President Mugabe’s model and commitment to printing money as the way to pay off debt. The sheer brilliance of the Greens scheme is that interest rates for borrowers will be zero. This policy will, of course, severely punish those not responsible for the monetary collapse the world’s savers. Those rapacious and retired folk who had scraped together a nest egg in the local bank to assist in their retirement will get no return for their deposit. I do struggle to understand how this policy offers an incentive to all others to save. Meanwhile, it’s business and bonuses as usual for Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan et al. The printing presses are rolling as the international banking industry and politicians now speak not of printing money nor of social credit but of “quantitative easing.” This phrase sounds more like a description given to a ewe about to give birth to triplets rather than a monetary expression but there you have it. All of which gave me the idea to print my own money. If the Feds can do it, if the euro zone can do it, why not me – or you?

. . .  counterfeiting or increasing the money supply for a private benefit is illegal but increasing the money supply by Government for public benefit and electoral advantage is not.

Both however have the same effect on savings and the purchasing power of our dollar and both should be illegal.

I go to jail and Mr Norman goes to Parliament. How does that work?

Gerry isn’t the only one to spot the similarities between social credit and quantitative easing. Democrats for Social Credit leader Stephnie de Ruyter has given the proposal her blessing.

Green snake oil on sale

The Green Party has come up with what co-leader Russel Norman calls a suite of measures to address the high value of the kiwi dollar.

Minister of economic Development Steven Joyce, rightly, calls it snake-oil.

“New Zealand has one of the strongest economies in the OECD over the last 12 months, and yet the Greens are determined to talk us down and promote a bunch of ideas that are only in vogue in countries that have run out of options and have massive and crippling public debt,” Mr Joyce says.

“The Greens solution to supposedly encourage the private sector is to slap a capital gains tax on it. Leaving aside the fact that Australia has a Capital Gains Tax and a high dollar, it’s a strange way to seek to encourage investment and growth by offering to tax it more.

“They then want to abandon sensible monetary policy and whack up the cost of living for every New Zealander, and they want to pay for the Christchurch rebuild by printing money.

“They have truly jumped the shark. The Greens half-baked economic ideas would move one of the few solidly growing OECD economies into the basket case division – more proof that they should never be let near the Treasury benches.

“In the post GFC world New Zealand is doing better than most. Our economy is 2.6% larger than it was this time last year, and the economy has added 57,000 jobs over the last two years.

“The way to achieve faster growth and more and higher paying jobs is to first have responsible fiscal and monetary policy, and then to assist Kiwi firms to become more competitive in the area of skills, innovation, infrastructure, access to raw materials, capital and markets. Not panicky responses from politicians in desperate search for a headline.”

Printing more money as Norman suggests , is one of the failed policies of the 70s and 80s that the late Sir Robert Muldoon might have favoured.

We paid dearly for that with very high interest rates and inflation until our economy was brought back into the real world with the successful policies of the mid to late 80s and early 90s.

Going back to government meddling with the exchange rate and the inflationary impact that would have might provide a temporary fillip for exporters but it would be at a very high cost for the whole economy. Those on middle and lower incomes who can least afford it would pay the highest price.